Saturday, January 24, 2009

Felix Salmon asks the question: is nationlisation contagious?

The answer to that is YES if it is done without giving existing capital holders the belief that they are being treated fairly. (See Felix's post here.)

A bank that loses access to capital eventually fails. Certainly in a current account deficit country if it loses access to intermediate funding it fails - and intermediate funders are not that keen if the bank has no access to capital.

If private shareholders feel that government will ride roughshod over their rights then there will be no private shareholders. They will have "fear of government".

So there must be a process which respects the capital that private shareholders offer - and which is seen to honour that capital.

As noted in my last post Svenska Handelsbanken did not surrender ANY equity to the government even though it took government liquidity support. It was seen to have capital and the shareholder capital was respected.

There was - and the histories referred to in my last post - a contagion until the due process was implemented an no contagion afterwards.

I have no objection at all to nationalisation - but it must be accompanied by a process that both respects and is seen to respect existing capital holders.

Can we please get this straight? Contagious nationalisation - and that is where Willem Buiter et al are heading - is a disaster. It is also an simply not necessary.

John Hempton

PS. Notwithstanding the above - a pretty-close-to-complete nationalisation will probably happen in the UK. Due process will lead us there.

6 comments:

To the extent that I own stocks, I wouldn't sell them or stop buying them if the government, in a national emergency, takes over some banks, and some stock-holders get burned. After all, without the government guarantees, they might be burned already. I agree that the process should be seen to be fair, but your worry puzzles me.

On the other hand, I worry about the reaction of taxpayers if it comes to be believed that the assets of stock-holders, who didn't take enough interest in their investments to vote out buffoons, are made viable at the taxpayer's expense. Their reaction seems more bothersome to me.

Stock-holders of the nationalized banks can console themselves with the thought that, just like the rest of us taxpayers, they are part owners of the banks that are nationalized. Surely that provides some solace.

Don- as a "libertarian Democrat" oxymorons and contradictions are obviously your stock in trade.

Take a look at recent trading activity in Barclay's Bank. There shareholders of a more practical cast have taken action to protect what little they have left- by selling, driving the stock down dramatically. "Libertarian Democrats" and other woolly headed "buy and holders" are getting trampled in the stampede.

Your observation that you wouldn't sell in the face of imminent nationalization is your personal tragedy, not a basis for rational public policy.

I wasn't clear. I didn't mean financial stocks. My point was that I wouldn't sell Walmart stock because of the banks being nationalized. I don't understand how some financial stocks being blown up translates to people in general being afraid to invest in other areas. There might be good reasons to buy or sell Walmart stock, but fear of nationalization isn't one of them. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you? Maybe you were just talking about financial stocks going forward.

John Hempton, I meant to say that I was responding to John Haskell. I've been dividing my writing time on my computer this morning. On a personal note, I have to admit that I do love paradox. Raymond Smullyan and Martin Gardner are two of my favorite writers. I was an undergraduate and graduate student in philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I'm probably one of the few people who read the non-economic writings of Smith, Jevons, and Keynes, before reading their economic writings, although that was a million years ago. However, I would submit that understanding the role of paradox in human thought and agency is crucial to understanding any of their writings. Since graduate school, the study of Talmud has been my main interest, as well as studying languages. As for being a Democrat, I'm very happy with my party, even if they're not always happy with me.

Cheers, and again, sorry for being unclear again, Don the lib Democrat

PS I am an adherent of the Many-Worlds View in physics and Modal Realism. So, being a libertarian Democrat isn't that hard.

General disclaimer

The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Hempton. You should assume Mr. Hempton and his affiliates have positions in the securities discussed in this blog, and such beneficial ownership can create a conflict of interest regarding the objectivity of this blog. Statements in the blog are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors. Certain information in this blog concerning economic trends and performance is based on or derived from information provided by third-party sources. Mr. Hempton does not guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based. Such information may change after it is posted and Mr. Hempton is not obligated to, and may not, update it. The commentary in this blog in no way constitutes a solicitation of business, an offer of a security or a solicitation to purchase a security, or investment advice. In fact, it should not be relied upon in making investment decisions, ever. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author. In particular this blog is not directed for investment purposes at US Persons.